SHAILENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This public interest litigation under Section 226 of the Constitution of India raises alleged public cause of misdemeanour, on the part of respondents No.4 and 5 who happen to be Sarpanch and Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Rurai, Tahsil Lahar, District Bhind, while implementing scheme under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for brevity 2005 Act), thereby depriving labourers of their legitimate rights as guaranteed under the Act/Rules and they have allegedly embezzled public money and caused embezzlement.

(2.) After having heard learned counsel for rival parties on admission and perused the material placed on record it is obvious that for raising grievance against non-implementation or faulty implementation of the said Scheme, in-house remedy before Ombudsman appointed in every district and thereafter before the State Govt. is stipulated u/S. Sec. 32 of 2005 Act and u/Rs. 7 and 8 of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee (Appointment, Powers and Duties of the Ombudsman) Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2013 (for brevity 2013 Rules).

(3.) In view of above, this court further directs that in case there is no Ombudsman appointed and functional in Bhind district, then petitioner is free to make his representation before the State Govt.